"Morning After" Pill Debate

[Air Force Guy]

Background: The discussion about "The Morning After" pill came up at a recent family reunion.

The pill apparently doesn't kill a child per se, it just keeps a potentially fertilized egg from implanting itself in the wall of the uterus. Is that correct?

Their argument is that the fertilized egg is not technically nor practically a human life until imbeds itself in the uterus and starts to grow an umbilical cord. I didn't have my ducks in a row so I had to stay mum during the (short) discussion. The two brothers are well-educated and staunch conservatives otherwise...but obviously not Catholic (nor am I). They otherwise disapprove of abortions for convenience sake.

What are they not telling? What would be a knowledgeable interjection against their favorable comments about the pill? Does the pill risk the life of the mother in some way? Is the pill 90%+ effective or does it have a high failure rate?

Discuss.

[ThomasMore]

Background: The discussion about "The Morning After" pill came up at a recent family reunion.

The pill apparently doesn't kill a child per se, it just keeps a potentially fertilized egg from implanting itself in the wall of the uterus. Is that correct?

Their argument is that the fertilized egg is not technically nor practically a human life until imbeds itself in the uterus and starts to grow an umbilical cord. I didn't have my ducks in a row so I had to stay mum during the (short) discussion. The two brothers are well-educated and staunch conservatives otherwise...but obviously not Catholic (nor am I). They otherwise disapprove of abortions for convenience sake.

What are they not telling? What would be a knowledgeable interjection against their favorable comments about the pill? Does the pill risk the life of the mother in some way? Is the pill 90%+ effective or does it have a high failure rate?

Discuss.

The truth is usually simple. Rationalizations against the truth are what get complicated.

I can't confirm how RU-486 acts. IF your description is correct:

Once a sperm and an egg meet, a new human life is conceived. The one cell will divide and develop throughout pregnancy, until birth. The infant will continue to grow and develop to adulthood.

Unless something prevents that: disease, accident, or deliberate human action. Disease and accident have no moral dimension. Deliberate human action does.

The "preventing implantation in the uterine wall" is a way to prevent the new human life from taking nutrition -- the new life is "just" deliberately starved to death.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Once sperm and egg unite, a new, unque HUMAN life is created. The product of conception, blastocyst, zygote, fetus, pre-born, infant, baby, toddler, child, preteen, tween, youth, teenager, young adult, adult, senior adult, seasoned citizen -- they are ALL unique human lives represented by stages, NOT different species of human being.

[Air Force Guy]

Ok, thanks TM and HSRU...

Starving a baby. That's definintely a(n emotionally charged) weapon in the debate.

[ThomasMore]

Ok, thanks TM and HSRU...

Starving a baby. That's definintely a(n emotionally charged) weapon in the debate.

My pleasure, AF.

My intent was not to be inflammatory, but to be clear and consistent.

Once the sperm fertilizes the egg, a new, unique human life has begun. This human life will continue to develop to adulthood unless someone or something prevents it. That is simple fact.

If human action takes away a fertilized egg's sustenance, then that human action kills off a human life.

Consciousness cannot be the deciding factor -- if it was, someone asleep, unconscious, or in coma would not have a right to live.

"Viability" cannot be a deciding factor -- "viability" merely means that the human life cannot continue without support. A two-year-old will die if he is cast out into the wild, as will some disabled people and frail elderly. Do they have a right to live? A fetus might survive out of the womb at certain stages of development; not at others. The dividing line of "viability" is unclear, and continually changes as medical care improves. The result of aborting an "unviable" fetus merely means that the mother chooses to kill him because the fetus would die if removed from his mother's womb.

"Preventing a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus" removes the fertilized egg's sustenance. The fertilized egg already identifies and defines the unique person -- the moment of conception is the beginning of that person's life. Killing a freshly fertilized egg is the killing of a person at the beginning of his life.

[gnome]

The Morning after pill is not the same as RU-486.

Based on what I know... the primary function of the morning-after pill is to prevent ovulation while the sperm is still present, and thus preventing fertilization in the first place if it hasn't happened already.

It has a secondary effect of sometimes interfering with implantation--BUT no more so than standard birth control pills do. In addition, implantation fails naturally in many cases with no drug involved.

RU-486 is something completely different than Plan B- "Morning after" pill.

[Air Force Guy]

My pleasure, AF.

My intent was not to be inflammatory, but to be clear and consistent.

Once the sperm fertilizes the egg, a new, unique human life has begun. This human life will continue to develop to adulthood unless someone or something prevents it. That is simple fact.

If human action takes away a fertilized egg's sustenance, then that human action kills off a human life.

Consciousness cannot be the deciding factor -- if it was, someone asleep, unconscious, or in coma would not have a right to live.

"Viability" cannot be a deciding factor -- "viability" merely means that the human life cannot continue without support. A two-year-old will die if he is cast out into the wild, as will some disabled people and frail elderly. Do they have a right to live? A fetus might survive out of the womb at certain stages of development; not at others. The dividing line of "viability" is unclear, and continually changes as medical care improves. The result of aborting an "unviable" fetus merely means that the mother chooses to kill him because the fetus would die if removed from his mother's womb.

"Preventing a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus" removes the fertilized egg's sustenance. The fertilized egg already identifies and defines the unique person -- the moment of conception is the beginning of that person's life. Killing a freshly fertilized egg is the killing of a person at the beginning of his life.I'm convinced that with pro-murder people, they are in it for the convenience, not because they have defensible ground...so one excuse is as good as another if it deflects the guilt of murder from them.

Oddly, all but the most callous women eventually succumb to the guilt of a baby crying out in their dreams--the one they aborted. I can't imagine bearing that kind of weight throughout eternity--giving my personal endorsement to the butchery of a baby.

[star2589]

the morning after pill has the exact same mechanism of action as normal birth control pills, and other hormonal contraceptives. it acts primarily by preventing conception by suppressing ovulation, and its secondary mechanism of action is to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. after implantation the morning after pill will not effect a pregnancy. the morning after pill will not be effective if taken more than 5 days after sex.

the reason that this is possible, is that sperm can survive for several days inside the female reproductive track, whereas an egg only survives for about a day after being released. so, its normal for a pregnancy to result from a sexual encounter that occurred before ovulation.

the morning after pill should not be confused with Mifepristone, formally known as RU-86. Mifepristone is an abortifacient that can be used up to 49 days after a womans last period.

[ThomasMore]

Thank you both, Gnome and Star, for the clarification. Sorry for confusing the two.

[ThomasMore]

The Morning after pill is not the same as RU-486.

Based on what I know... the primary function of the morning-after pill is to prevent ovulation while the sperm is still present, and thus preventing fertilization in the first place if it hasn't happened already.

The Catholic Church (of which I am not a member) opposes all forms of contraception.

Having said that, I see a substantial difference between sperm and unfertilized egg -- which have the potential to form new life, and a fertilized egg, which IS new life.

It has a secondary effect of sometimes interfering with implantation--BUT no more so than standard birth control pills do.

If true, I wasn't aware of this. Regardless, the effect is the same: If deliberate human action terminates a new life -- this includes human action with knowledge of the result -- it has a moral dimension.

In addition, implantation fails naturally in many cases with no drug involved.

Then there is no moral dimension.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I'm convinced that with pro-murder people, they are in it for the convenience, not because they have defensible ground...so one excuse is as good as another if it deflects the guilt of murder from them.

Absolutely true.

Oddly, all but the most callous women eventually succumb to the guilt of a baby crying out in their dreams--the one they aborted. I can't imagine bearing that kind of weight throughout eternity--giving my personal endorsement to the butchery of a baby.

However, even the most callous women suffer the consequences of their actions. Many have multiple failed relationships, unable to sustain a viable personal connections. Some turn to substance abuse and/or over-eating to try to compensate for feelings they can't understand or buried psychological effects they aren't consciously aware of.

The guilt is like a growing cancer eating away at one's soul, and the ONLY way to assuage it is through the forgiveness of the Father and salvation of the spirit. Believe me, I know. My daughter would have been 28 this past July.